Talk:Compulsory voting

Compulsory voting in non-democracies

The section "Compulsory voting in non-democracies" makes little sense. It seems to hinge on the last phrase "high voter turnout", but the latter only makes sense in a voluntary voting context. It also obliquely makes assumptions about what a "non democracy" is, with no context to support such assumptions. That doesn't mean it doesn't belong here, just that it's not very credible.

I assume the Soviet Union blurb ("Soviet Union: while de-jure voting was not obligatory, de-facto voting was enforced, to report that 99.8% of Soviet people "unanimously support" the current Soviet leader.") is a remainder of this from an older version of the article, and is likewise a slanted view (not saying it's incorect, but it does introduce somebody's unneeded personal view of the matter). The Zaire description that follows the SU description ("Zaire: Suffrage was universal and compulsory in Zaire, although the country was a single-party state (until 1990), and President Mobutu was the only candidate allowed to run in presidential elections.") is a better example of a neutral way of putting this. I think the SU info tidbit should be changed to look more like the Zaire info tidbit. TomorrowTime (talk) 20:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Writing from assumption

The one sentence paragraph:

"Compulsory voting may also lead to an increase in the amount of invalid ballot papers which are not marked according to the rules of voting (either through deliberate spoiling or returning a blank ballot) as a form of protest against mandatory voting, and also that there would be a large amount of resources expended on questioning and fining non-participants."

is clearly written as speculation, in a place without compulsory ballots. So, it either should be removed, or be rewritten by someone with direct knowledge of both ways. The matter is not hypothetical, but has been implemented and works well in many places. As far as the issues described go: yes, there are donkey votes, and they are no bad thing. No, no significant resources need be spent in enforcement -- unlike US drug laws.

It's well known what the outcome is where whole sections of the population are encouraged not to vote, and for many, many US citizens that has made that coutnry's "democracy" pretty farcical.

Compulsory voting in Venezuela

• There is a compulsory voting law currently in effect Venezuela according to the defition of the word ("compulsory":required by law or a rule. Oxford American Dictionary) and it was not abandoned with the current Constitution. Artlcle 63 of the 1999 constitution says that "La ley garantizará el principio de la personalización del sufragio". This is the current "Ley Orgánica del Sufragio y Participación Política":

"Capítulo I: De la Condición de Elector Artículo 85º Todos los venezolanos mayores de dieciocho (18) años, no sujetos por sentencia definitivamente firme, a interdicción civil, ni a condena penal que lleve consigo inhabilitación política, tienen el derecho y están en el deber de votar en las elecciones que rige esta Ley para los poderes públicos que correspondan a su lugar de residencia." CNE Website. In order to have a conversation about the issue, please provide an alternative definition of compulsory voting with from reliable source, since other countries with laws and no punishment are also on the list like Turkey and Mexico. (Caracas1830 17:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC))

Arguments Against

It would be nice to also see some arguments against compulsory voting in the article. You know, NPOV and all that.

Ditto. For anyone who has the time. -- Lenoxus 22:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

We need arguments against!!!

Are there any? :D --Lord Snoeckx 19:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I can think of a few, (forcing people to make a choice without adequate knowledge of the subject to make an informed decision, difficulty of getting people to polling places in poorer or remote areas, forcing people to choose between two equally undesirable candidates, etc.) but that would constitute original research unless somebody could find some source for that. --Lurlock 19:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that as it now stands the article seems very biased because it doesn't acknowledge any arguments against compulsory voting. (Note that even a partisan tract needs to acknowledge counter arguments if it intends to be at all persuasive.) If Lurlock's arguments against compulsory voting would "constitute original research", how is it that the arguments in favor of compulsory voting listed in this article as it now stands do not "constitute original research"? Specifically whose arguments are they? TheScotch 07:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I added a couple of arguments against. Hopefully someone who has given the subject more thought will flesh this out. CenozoicEra 21:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I have also added arguments deleted by vandal 210.18.194.34 on 18:53, 6 September 2006. Prior to this, there were arguments against. CenozoicEra 04:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

You can certainly get a lot more voters that have no idea what they're voting for. A deceptively-written proposition could be voted in by those that aren't interested and just vote what sounds good. It's a little different perspective in that it harms society instead of going against the citizen's wishes. 205.154.237.150 (talk) 00:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

France

Never heard of compulsory voting in France. And I lived there for a while. Can anyone give a source for that??

In a randomly selected cirumscripition in Paris only 66,9% of the registered voters cast their ballot on the legistative elections of 2002 on 16th June 2002. (http://www.interieur.gouv.fr/sections/a_votre_service/resultats-elections/legis2002/075/circons01.html) A fact that is hardly compatible with the existence of compulsory voting.

Is compulsory voting only applicable to some special elections??

Revert regarding Australia

Regarding South Australia - Is State enrolment compulsory? - http://www.seo.sa.gov.au/apps/uploadedFiles/news/276/SEO_QA06_13feb06.pdf - "Initial (first time) enrolment for State elections is not compulsory, however, after having enrolled you must maintain your enrolment details and vote. It is compulsory to enrol for Federal elections once you turn 18." I have a citation therefore I disagree with the revert. Comments welcome. Timeshift 04:42, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a FAQ, not a peer-reviewed academic reference or a primary source (i.e. legislation). As the SA SEO do not maintain their roll (according to the National Library of Australia, only WA continue to do so - [1]), which is basically a SA extract of the federal roll for registered electors in South Australia, and the federal Electoral Acts have since 1911 stipulated compulsory enrolment. The only exceptions outlined by the Legal Information Access Centre for South Australia relate to local elections, which also applies to two other states (WA and Tasmania) - which notes in three different places that Federal and State elections prescribe compulsory enrolment and voting, despite a failed push by the SA Government in 1994 to overturn it. [2] From 1984 onwards, enrolment was compulsory for all eligible electors in Australia. AEC In 1985, SA became the last state to adopt compulsory voting for its upper house. It's interesting that the AEC paper, which documents all states, mentions no exceptions for South Australia. The weight of evidence suggests that even if such a provision is missing from South Australian legislation (Electoral Act 1985) (which doesn't explain the 1994 efforts to overturn it), it is entirely irrelevant anyway as the Commonwealth via the AEC maintain the state roll, and it's compulsory to be on that. Orderinchaos 04:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Practically, yes, enrolment is indeed compulsory in South Australia. But the legal exception does remain, and it is possible that some older South Australians remain un-enrolled.--cj | talk 02:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I've added something with references to legislation and Anthony Green. Mark Hurd 17:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe that, in New South Wales at least, voting is compulsory also at local council elections. This might need to be verified so I haven't edited the article. Alpheus (talk) 23:55, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Voting is compulsory at NSW local council elections - in my time I spoilt a few ballots for Parramatta council because I simply did not care. There was a by-election there a few years ago that was not well publicised so caused a fair stir because many people didn't realise it was on so incurred the fine (small $ but still $). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.175.210.35 (talk) 10:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that the Australia banner should not be here since this is an international topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.95.106.113 (talk) 02:34, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

TURKEY A COMPULSORY VOTING COUNTRY?

I live in Turkey and on 22nd of October we`ll have an election. But I am sure that no one will be enforced to vote. I personally know many people and friends who will not vote. Can some one correct me if I`m wrong?

Actually if you have a look at the CIA Factbook you`ll see that Turkey does not have a compulsory voting system. If no one objects I`ll erase Turkey out of the list of compulsory voting countries.85.105.3.205 13:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The same thing with Spain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.50.130.125 (talk) 20:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I have an objection to the deletion of Turkey. According to the International IDEA publication, Turnkey has a compulsory voting system. http://www.idea.int/vt/compulsory_voting.cfm

The penalties might not have actually been imposed on illegitimate abstainers in Turkey. However, so long as voting is stipulated as a legal duty, we should regard it as a compulsory voting system by definition. I do not think that the CIA Factbook is reliable enough about compulsory voting. --Pochi II (talk) 03:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't vote for the last 10 years in Turkish elections, however never been fined. I know many people who never voted but never knew anyone who ever paid a fine for not voting. Turkey should be listed in countries where voting is compulsory but not enforced (as it is the case). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.123.246.138 (talk) 16:20, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Dutch text

Someone has added the following text, I think it is in Dutch.

Compulsatory voten in the veregenigde staten is niet als hier in Holland. Wij gaan dieper in berich t advesries van de stand[point.Nationaliteiten as in Canada aen the veregnifgde staten en de Antillen hebbenniet zoveer genug van de verenigde staten a;s

Please translate it or throw it away. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AttishOculus (talk • contribs) 11:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

This is not real Dutch. Looks like it has been mauled by some internet translation. Anyway it is not very interesting. 213.214.57.217 (talk) 14:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)Hicham.vanborm

Luxembourg

I moved L. to the non-enforcing list because it's not enforced at all here. --Kloth (talk) 23:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Voice of sections on arguments for/against

The voice of the sections "Arguments in [favour of/against] compulsory voting" seems redundant to me. Rather say saying:

"A common argument for compulsory voting is to guarantee that the government represents a majority of the population, not only individuals who vote. This helps ensure that governments do not neglect sections of society that are less active politically."

should it not simply be an assertion? i.e.:

"The government in a compulsory voting jurisdiction respresents..." It would still be pretty clear that these are not accepted facts, but arguments for/against. Max Calf (talk) 05:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete Peruvian argument?

Surely this is an argument for compulsory voting. If voting was not compulsory, presumably the guerrillas would have more of a reason to act violently to those who chose to endorse the legitimacy of the government that they oppose by exercising their freedom to vote, rather than simply following their obligation.

Or at the least, it is an argument against staining people's fingers with ink, in favour of simply crossing them of an electoral roll.

I vote that it is disingenuous and should get the axe. Max Calf (talk) 05:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Countries that do not enforce compulsory voting

It seems (to me, at least) that some editors are confusing the list of Countries that do not enforce compulsory voting as a list of Countries that do not do not have compulsory voting laws. The distinction of course, being that there are several countries that have laws in their books that compulsorily require all eligible citizens to vote in an election, but do not enforce these laws by imposing some form of punishment on those who fail to vote. The list in the article should be restricted to these countries (the ones that have the laws but do not enforce them) as opposed to just a list of countries that have no laws. My point is reinforced by the fact that the article mentions that there are 32 countries that have laws of which 19 enforce them, but together, the lists add up to 38 countries. Can someone confirm and/or correct this list (or at least let me know if in fact I am mistaken) Phloyd (talk) 23:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

There also needs to be some kind of explanation of what a country that has, but does not enforce, compulsory voting is, in the actual article. Especially if Bolivia, for example, is to exist both in the list of countries that do not enforce and also used in the examples of enforcement.

Lordandmaker (talk) 15:49, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

In "Contemporary", can somebody tell me why there are only 14 countries listed under "Enforced", yet it is quoted as 19 in the general section? Similar complaint about unenforced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.28.110.125 (talk) 12:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

When is voting ever compulsory?

Shouldn't it be made 110% clear that voting is rarely if ever compulsory? What countries hold a gun to citizens heads forcing them to vote? Compulsory voting usually means compulsory attendance of a voting booth. If someone doesn't want to vote there is nothing making them. Timeshift (talk) 10:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Compulsory action does not means state terrorism. People are fined when they littering around. There is no gun to force people to litter at specified place. It is accepted to be compulsory not to litter. However, if there is completely no legal consequence, it is surely not compulsory. --Kittyhawk2 (talk) 03:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Arguments for

My own experience as an Australian living in Republic of Ireland has shown me further benefits, although they may be for Australia only and not other countries. As Australia imposes fines for failing to vote, the governments have been compelled to ensure that as many people as possible will have access to vote. The upshot of this is that as a voter in Australia I can turn up to any polling booth in my area on election day which will always be a Saturday. If I'm going to be too far from my home electoral division I can turn up to any other polling station and cast an absentee vote. There's also postal voting which is widely advertised before the election. It's almost impossible to not have access to a polling booth on the day.

Contrast that with Ireland where you get a card that allows you entry to 1 polling booth only and elections are held on a Thursday. Also, from the time that the election is called you have about 2 weeks to register your new home if you've moved since the last election. Most people don't do this - it's almost like they see where they are registered as being where they will be identified with as home and the Irish are very connected to their home counties. The result is that many people, and especially young people, cannot get to a polling booth without considerable inconvenience and so they don't bother. To me it almost looks like discouraged sufferage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kersti (talk • contribs) 22:04, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

For info, I have deleted the last three paragraphs of the Arguments For section on the grounds that they presented contentious opinion as fact (e.g. that voting in fact *is* a 'civil duty' rather than a civil right). Obviously the purpose of the section is to present arguments, but the style of writing (which was very much that of a single-authored essay) was extremely subjective and it was not made clear that such claims were contentious. I've removed the paragraphs based on the 'countering systemic bias' project - they represented a 'liberal-democratic' worldview as though it were neutral or objective. They also added nothing of any significance to the section or the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.92.223 (talk) 13:05, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

IP User repeatedly adding Discrimination category

I don't believe this is a valid addition. I suspect it's someone trying to make some sort of a point, but I have no idea what. I've tried to communicate with the IP editor via Edit summaries and his Talk page, with no success. I will keep reverting until I see good reason to stop, treating this as vandalism. HiLo48 (talk) 02:09, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree with the removal - the category seems to have nothing to do with the topic and is just someone expressing their POV. Orderinchaos 03:09, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Discrimination category

How is Compulsory voting discriminatory? It seems that there is a single user adamant on keeping the article in that category. Rabbitfang (talk) 00:43, 13 August 2011 (UTC).

Clear that Compulsory voting is political discrimination. Please don't erase of this category because is certain. The countries with compulsory voting are highly dangerous. Jackie d. alarcón.

No, you are wrong. I am certain that your use of English is wrong here. HiLo48 (talk) 20:39, 15 August 2011 (UTC).

Not, is certain, so that please keept Compulsory voting in the . In the Wikipedia in French, Spanish and Portuguese, Compulsory voting is in the category Discrimination. You are that are wrong, not me, in my country (Peru), there political discrimination. Jackie d. alarcón.

The discrimination categories were added to those pages by anonymous editors, like it was for this page for some time. The IP addresses were identical for the French and Portuguese versions (within a few hours of each other) and the Spanish wiki has a similar IP making the edits. In all cases, there was at least 1 time where the edit was reverted as vandalism. Also, the definition for discrimination at Wikitionary [3] is "distinct treatment of an individual or group to their disadvantage". Compulsory voting does not meet this definition because the treatment of citizens as a whole is not distinct. If you continue to add Category:Discrimination to this article, you will continue to find yourself blocked with an indefinite block in your future. This edit is opposed by several Wikipedians and you are the only one supporting it. Rabbitfang 01:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Links to diffs: French Spanish Portuguese Rabbitfang 01:57, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Las categorías de la discriminación se han añadido a las páginas de los editores anónimos, como si fuera de esta página desde hace algún tiempo. Las direcciones IP son idénticos para las versiones en francés y portugués (en unas pocas horas de diferencia) y la wiki española tiene una IP similar hacer los cambios. En todos los casos, había por lo menos una vez en la edición se ha revertido el vandalismo. Además, la definición de la discriminación en el Wikitionary [4] es el "tratamiento distinto de un individuo o grupo a su situación de desventaja". El voto obligatorio no cumple con esta definición, ya que el tratamiento de los ciudadanos en su conjunto no es distinto. Si continuamos agregando Category:Discrimination a este artículo, usted continuará encuentra bloqueada con un bloque de tiempo indefinido en el futuro. Esta edición es la oposición de varios wikipedistas y usted es el único que lo apoyan. Translated to Spanish by Google Translator. Rabbitfang 01:39, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Jackie, usted puede responder en español y voy a traducir al Inglés si lo desea. Jackie, you may respond in Spanish and I will translate them to English if you want. Rabbitfang 01:44, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Rabbitfang's right - by definition, something enforced on everybody cannot be discrimination. If it is illegal in a country for one group to vote that would be discriminatory. Orderinchaos 07:28, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Derecho Rabbitfang - algo, por definición, aplicada a todo el mundo no puede haber discriminación. Si es ilegal en el país por un grupo de votación que sería discriminatorio. Translated to Spanish using Google Translator. Comment by Orderinchaos 07:28, 16 August 2011 (UTC). Translated by Rabbitfang 07:32, 16 August 2011 (UTC)